Spanish Spanish

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to analyze whether the judicial error of law in the appeal for review affects the exercise of the guarantor function, concluding that Art. 658 of the Organic Integral Penal Code is incompatible with the constitutional norms that establish the principles, rights and guarantees of due process. This is due to the fact that the grounds for filing the appeal for review cannot be based on the violation of these principles, since they refer to judicial errors of law that occur within the process and do not require new evidence. According to Art. 659 of the COIP, the judges of the court of review generally reject the admission of the writ of interposition of the appeal for review. This situation can be considered as contrary to the law, since, in the accusatory oral criminal system, only the evidentiary results that are evaluated and assessed to determine the facts and support the application of the law in the motivation of the sentence are considered as evidence. The methodology applied in the research is qualitative, through the use of bibliographic and jurisprudential resources that allow the breakdown of premises. It is concluded that Art. 658 allows its interposition with new evidence that demonstrates an error of fact, while Art. 10 of the Organic Code of the Judicial Function indicates that the Review Resource is extraordinary and deals with the control of legality and judicial error.

Key words: miscarriage of justice, error of law, appeal for review, right to appeal, challenge